July 25, 2014, 07:45:08 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 50
EOS Bodies / Re: A cheaper FF body - anytime soon?
« on: May 14, 2012, 01:03:44 PM »
Once the D600 arrives, Nikon will have a current, modern, camera with all of the current bells and whistles. The 5D2 will be missing those and when you draw up the list of features to compare (including 24 vs 21 MP), you'll never fall on the side of the 5D2.
24MP sure does sound awfully similar to what every Sony camera is rolling with right now...I wouldnt be so certain you are getting the newest sensor tech they have.

I'll also be curious to see what that does to D800 sales when it comes out. For wedding shooters, I'm not sure they'd have a reason to stick D800 over D600. Likewise for people upgrading from their D3100/D5100/etc...a D600 will seem great in comparison. It'd be funny to see them cannibalize the market for their media darling so quickly

EOS Bodies / Re: A cheaper FF body - anytime soon?
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:56:30 PM »
The 5d2 price isn't dropping
Except for, you know, the fact that it did drop in Canon's store ($1759 refurb), and that through Canon Loyalty, you can get a 5DII for $1400ish+ tax. I've seen the used market drop off lately...on sites like Fred Miranda, it's rare to see even a like new body go for more than $1800. Multiple times the 5dII and 24-104 has gone for $2400ish on Ebay Daily Deals.
I'm also very interested to see what Canon does after the d800 public relations disaster
I don't get this mentality...that its a huge PR disaster. Getting crushed in specs in the Rebel level...sure. At the $3000 price mark, most of the buyers have enough sense to check more than a few specs. The only way it'd be a PR disaster for Canon is if the 5dIII was terrible...significantly worse than the 5DII while charging a premium and all the major pro shooters abandoned them for Nikon. THAT'S a disaster. But, since that hasn't happened (and won't), the only way its a slight disaster for Canon is if they get crushed in sales. And since we won't even be able to guess at that side for another 6+ months, let's hold off on that silly hype.

As for the entry level full-frame, I'd imagine its a ways off. Maybe Photokina, but probably more likely it's a next spring kind of thing. The 5DII still sells well, they've got manufacturing figured out for it...there's no rush. The 5DII is basically already the entry level full-frame offering, if $1500-1800 isn't cheap enough, then no camera will satisfy that market

Why not ask a more logical question such as:

"Would you buy a 28mp with 8fps for $2500 if it had no video?"
But the question should be grounded in reality. Canon couldn't sell that camera at $2500 if they have to R&D a new sensor, new focus system, etc; and they knew the market was smaller than the original market that put the 5dIII at $3500. I mean, sure, I'd GLADLY take my dream camera at half the reasonable market price, but it has no practical application as a poll, everyone would answer yes to getting their dreams.

The question is basically, how much less would the camera have to cost for video not being included to be worth it. I think that's a fair question...and one that gets at how much people actually value video features

This is why Nikon will sell a boatload of their new DSLRs and is gaining market share against Canon in 2012.
Got a link for that? As I imagine it'd be pretty impossible for the D800 to have gained Nikon market-share when its barely even available in stores

Really?  How do you come to that conclusion?  On a chip that is neither natively 5:4, 4:3 or 16:9 aspect into the bargain?
I'll let another user answer that for you

a slight increase to 22mp is intended for EOS-Movie, horizontal pixels 5760 is exactly 3 times of 1920, this indicates that 5D Mark III will do a full-sensor readout and 3x3 pixel binning to produce clean, sharp and almost-no-moire HD video.

Now, that's hypothetical for the reasoning, though it makes sense to make a sensor that can be used among many cameras (including the C cameras) that works well with video capture. But, they might also have found 22mp to be compromise between low-light and resolution that they liked best.

That moire is basically non-existent in video would lead me to believe that the sensor size isn't accidentally a solution for that, but, I wouldn't say its the only reason. Canon settled on 21mp for the 5dII with video as an after-thought; it might just be the magic number for them

Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image
It's an interesting question. I'd have to imagine that there was a slight compromise there...though, a true video person would be even happier with 4x4 binning, which would mean a sensor in the 35mp range. Canon have made sensors MUCH larger than that, so, they are clearly capable of such a thing. I imagine they tested it and decided that for the target market (wedding, event, indie movie set), low-light handling was more important than that added resolution, and their sensors only allowed them to go so far.

So, sure, it could have been 28mp, but, do you really need that extra resolution if it cost camera a stop of light, or didn't solve issues from the older 5dII (moire, etc)

EOS Bodies / Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
« on: May 13, 2012, 08:55:23 PM »
Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...
Because that hypothetical camera would have to sell as many units as the MkIII with video AND cost 30% less to produce (in R&D, manufacturing, etc) for Canon to offer it at $2500. Since selling fewer units would mean R&D/manufacturing costs aren't recouped the same...and $2500 is a 30% off discount from $3500.

And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess they've done that research...and those calculations...and know they'd be hurting their sales by going that route. I'd say the fact the only non-video DSLR you can find is a luxury brand like Leica means other companies agree.

EOS Bodies / Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?
« on: May 13, 2012, 12:46:24 PM »
Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.
Seriouly. Can you imagine if the 5DIII didn't have video (cause they were saving it for the Cine cameras)? People are already flipping out about DR, banding in shadows, a light leak "issue". Now take video away from the camera they've been waiting 3 years for and this forum would have imploded.

Apple might think it can tell me how I'm going to edit, but it can't tell my clients.
Yeah...they're going to lose the higher end pro market. But, that seems to be the way Apple was going; especially with rumors the Mac Pro may not continue on

Any particular reasons why?

From what I read, FCPX now has all the features people were complaining it didn't have upon release.
Get FCP X. It's basically designed just for the prosumer market, though they have finally gotten in some of the key components (multi-cam, etc). The interfaces are nice, and unless you have specific experience in FCP 7 or Adobe, you won't notice anything that throws you.

FCP X was a huge marketing mistake for Apple; they pulled the rug out of a lot of users whose lives depended on FCP7 features. Had they done from the start what they eventually decided on (allowing new FCP7 licenses while improving X to its level), you'd have a lot less people angry with it.

I was one of the people that swore off X and said I'd go to Adobe once I had to...just because Apple handled it so poorly. This past week at work, we bought 3 licenses of X for the price of one Adobe license, and I have no regrets with it so far.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica M10 HD video @ photokina...
« on: May 11, 2012, 03:25:17 PM »
It's definitely not necessary, but on the other hand: It's just a software feature, so why not?
As long as they don't compromise on the typical Leica qualities, I would be okay with it.
Well, cause once you start, you keep going down that path. People are going to want it improved, which means more R&D time not spent on the camera and stills. Look at what Canon found out with the 5dII; now they are making a whole line of Cine cameras they probably never imagined 5 years ago. Can you imagine Canon ever selling a camera without video? Or for that matter, the video not having any upgrades between models? Look at how much stills guys bitch about video upgrades in their $3k camera...can you imagine a line where you have $15k+ invested in it?

If I was investing that much in a system, I'd probably be mad if they started spending time working on a half-cooked video solution. And I'd be madder if they spent a lot of time working on a good one. Especially since video isn't gonna drop the price of the camera significantly

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica M10 HD video @ photokina...
« on: May 11, 2012, 12:51:31 PM »
All this could make for some interesting video functionality.
Except the people who could afford that package would just put their PL mount cine lenses on a Canon C-EOS body and get actual video features (focus peaking, ND filters, etc). At that price point, you're pulling focus and working with rigs anyway, so camera size isn't a big issue when the form factor is already smaller than film cameras.

If it was competing with the 5DIII, it might be an interesting alternative. But it's not, it's competing with actual video cameras (FS700, Red Scarlett, etc); video alone isn't gonna bring them more buyers.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 09:48:26 PM »
The flower pic posted by neuroanatomist is the type of shot that my wife likes taking.  Bear in mind that we're upgrading from an old SX100 point and shoot, so I imagine that pretty much anything is going to be a huge upgrade.
Cool, then you'll be fine with pretty much whatever you get for yourself. Actually, she may find herself liking the 50mm lens the most, because she'll be able to blur the non-flower parts out for cool shots.

As for the lens stuff, consider this comparison between 15mm and 24mm. One allows you to include a lot more in the frame.

That said, you'd potentially find the 15-85 frustrating for portraits, since it can only do f/5.6 in the long end where you'd use it. You'd have to decide if its worth losing the wide angle to get some light back and a little more reach (24-105), or if you'd sacrifice some reach for better low-light and depth of field (17-55).

If you're just coming from a point-and-shoot, another option is the 18-135...cheaper investment and very flexible while you learn the camera. Then when you realize you shoot certain focal lengths, you can invest in those zooms or primes. But, it's definitely not as nice a lens as the other 3 options.

Hope that helps

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:56:21 PM »
A potential thought. Rather than getting the 24-105 (though an excellent lens), it would seem that something like the 15-85 lens would suit what you do better than the 24-105 (gives you a MUCH wider field of view for landscapes), and the money you save could go towards a macro lens. The added benefit would be that a macro lens (Tamron 90mm, Canon 100mm USM, EF-S 60mm, etc) could also become your 2nd prime for portraits along with the 50mm lens.

Having gone the macro tube route, and now owning a macro lens, there's no substitute for the real thing. Id imagine you could find a lens combo that fits both your needs, and I'm not sure the 24-105 is that.

edit: It also depends on what you mean by "likes taking pictures of flowers". If you mean she likes taking snapshots of them, then a lens with .25x magnification will be fine. Some cropping and you'll get a bunch of good photos. If she's committed to flowers like birders are to birds or bug people are to bugs, then anything less than a macro lens would disappoint, because it won't capture the important details that make it cool

Canon General / Re: I have a question about wedding photography
« on: May 10, 2012, 10:10:43 AM »
Ordinarily they don't do this however it seems a tactful way of saying they don't like their photos
At the moment they're just too plastic-looking for my tastes.
I agree with these sentiments, and I'd venture a guess that either one of them has some photo knowledge, or they have a friend that does, thus why they'd want the RAW files (to process their own way).
I'd offer to give them the RAW files. Highly unusual but so is your work.
The other option, if you're comfortable with it, is to take the meeting and see what they are looking for specifically. Maybe it's a few simple changes (backing off the highlights, less brushing, etc), and then offering to re-do them in that style. Don't let them sit their for the entire editing, but, give them a few other options for how the photos might be processed.

It could avoid a messy situation, while also not dealing with the awkwardness that would be them sitting in on your entire edit (which would take significantly longer).

Do you have your webpage? Are these a departure from your normal style? Cause that will matter too. If all your other stuff looks the same, I'd be less inclined to change the photos, but, if they aren't what you feature on your site, then they'd have a point.

Lenses / Re: Just out of curiosity
« on: May 09, 2012, 04:36:30 PM »
When a thief finds a camera, does he/she really look closely to see if it has a red ring?
This is a fair point. Walking around with a camera with a big lens on will draw enough attention that a thief will target you regardless of how it looks.

But, it is a good idea potentially for concert/event photography. Security guards know to look for the white lenses and red rings; they might overlook something a little less shiny looking.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 50